A new Modes & Match Customization Trailer from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Infinity Ward's imminent military shooter sequel. It features gameplay and the developers outlining the game's "best in class" multiplayer support.

space captain wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 16:25:does MW3 have anywhere close to the same size maps as BF3?? i dont see how you can compare those games beyond the obvious fps stuff

Well, it doesn't even compete on the same scale of conflict but EA/Dice did manage to bring a lot of the FPS fluff that CoD fans love into BF3 without impacting the gameplay too much. I don't see the Call of Duty franchise doing anything to reinvent itself which is a big part of what brought it popularity in the first place.

This will probably be the last Modern Warfare game without full vehicle integration on land, air and sea. I can see them pulling it off this time but I don't think they can do it again with EA really going after their core market.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:07:I can sit in front of a random level I've never seen (and there are plenty since I won't buy a $15 map pack) and tell you within seconds if it's MW or MW2. Or I can tell you when I get to 5 kills as the perk gameplay mechanic was drastically changed. Along with many other mechanics.

Yeah but can you do that with a screenshot? I could probably do the same thing with 98% of the screenshots of every Battlefield game. That is because they update their engine between games.

I can't do it with Arkham City and I love that game. The press wet themselves over it. Those on this site that played wet themselves over it.

Also, if MW3 is using the Quake 3 engine why isn't id getting royalties?That's right, because it isn't the Quake 3 engine. No more than Source is. People need to stop spreading that information. Most, if not all, the remnants of the Quake 3 code is long since rewritten.

Remember that during that interview at quake con when John Carmack talked about there still being verbatim lines of code he had written in the IW4.0 code base. Im guessing not. I am also guessing you have missed the id software logo during the intro to all of the COD's. It's a prettied up Quake 3 engine and its a decade old. Facts...why bother with them when you have fanboi kool aid.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 16:40:I can't do it with Arkham City and I love that game. The press wet themselves over it. Those on this site that played wet themselves over it.

Also, if MW3 is using the Quake 3 engine why isn't id getting royalties?That's right, because it isn't the Quake 3 engine. No more than Source is. People need to stop spreading that information. Most, if not all, the remnants of the Quake 3 code is long since rewritten.

Instead of getting royalties id should gain access to the code, they haven't been relevant in the multiplayer arena for years now. I'd love a version of Doom multiplayer with the heavily tweaked "Quake 3" engine of Call of Duty.

Vazz wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:13:I don't know why people attack CoD all the time and praise BF. BFBC2=BF3 even if you don't want to admit it for some reason. But I don't care, I still like both series.

It's the way they PR the game, they say things like "dedicated servers" for the PC but then later go "oh, but they'll be unranked".

at least they're offering dedicated servers at all, so there's that.

I do like some of the things they're talking about with this one, the way kill streaks have been turned into point streaks and with the support class you don't get kicked to the bottom of the ladder if you die.

It'll be interesting with the new skill based matchmaking, if it actually works then all the cheaters and aim-botters will end up playing against each other.

I don't know of anyone that WANTS matchmaking. We want servers. I always play on the same SERVERS.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the way MW3 handles it, I think you can even pseudo rank up if you play on the same server all-the-time. That's what's been implied but not confirmed.

For a game like MW3 where the player counts are extremely low and the maps are the size of a shoebox I don't think matchmaking is the worst thing in the world. They're going to pass the hosting token around so one person doesn't have full control and low ping all the time, end of every map it'll switch to another player.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:07:I can sit in front of a random level I've never seen (and there are plenty since I won't buy a $15 map pack) and tell you within seconds if it's MW or MW2. Or I can tell you when I get to 5 kills as the perk gameplay mechanic was drastically changed. Along with many other mechanics.

Yeah but can you do that with a screenshot? I could probably do the same thing with 98% of the screenshots of every Battlefield game. That is because they update their engine between games.

I can't do it with Arkham City and I love that game. The press wet themselves over it. Those on this site that played wet themselves over it.

Also, if MW3 is using the Quake 3 engine why isn't id getting royalties?That's right, because it isn't the Quake 3 engine. No more than Source is. People need to stop spreading that information. Most, if not all, the remnants of the Quake 3 code is long since rewritten.

DangerDog wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:52:The biggest gripe is the price they set for these games, isn't it? If it were $39.99 (or less) then I think people would be more receptive to more of the same, tweaked multiplayer, few new maps and some single player.

Pretty much this. I like MW multiplayer, it's more frantic and fast paced than BF3 (don't get me wrong, I love BF also), but they just don't change enough of it to warrant charging $60 every year for a new game. A couple new maps and game modes aren't worth it, that's more what DLC should be. I have WaW, MW, MW2, and BLOPS, and they really are all the same game, but I did not pay full price for any of them. Same engine, same aesthetics, same feel, same mechanics.

MW3? I'll probably pick it up on a discount, get run 'n' gun itch out of my system, then go back to BF3.

dardin wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:54:My biggest gripe is the price tag. There is not enough differences between each one in the series to justify the $60 price tag for me. Call me when the price is around $30 and then I'll play it. Some people will pump a couple hundred hours into the game and get their $60 worth. I however will not be one of them due to it not being original enough to keep my attention.

I also felt BF3 was overpriced at $60 and refused to buy it at that price despite enjoying the beta test. BF3 I did end up purchasing though because I found it for $41 a few weeks before release for the limited edition. Now having played it for about a week I can see I will get my money's worth out of it.

Well, somehow starting with MW2, it took a VERY long time for it to get to 30. I bought all previous ones at 30 within a couple weeks of release. They are keeping it artificially inflated somehow.

Vazz wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:13:I don't know why people attack CoD all the time and praise BF. BFBC2=BF3 even if you don't want to admit it for some reason. But I don't care, I still like both series.

It's the way they PR the game, they say things like "dedicated servers" for the PC but then later go "oh, but they'll be unranked".

at least they're offering dedicated servers at all, so there's that.

I do like some of the things they're talking about with this one, the way kill streaks have been turned into point streaks and with the support class you don't get kicked to the bottom of the ladder if you die.

It'll be interesting with the new skill based matchmaking, if it actually works then all the cheaters and aim-botters will end up playing against each other.

I don't know of anyone that WANTS matchmaking. We want servers. I always play on the same SERVERS.

Beamer wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:07:I can sit in front of a random level I've never seen (and there are plenty since I won't buy a $15 map pack) and tell you within seconds if it's MW or MW2. Or I can tell you when I get to 5 kills as the perk gameplay mechanic was drastically changed. Along with many other mechanics.

Yeah but can you do that with a screenshot? I could probably do the same thing with 98% of the screenshots of every Battlefield game. That is because they update their engine between games.

My biggest gripe is the price tag. There is not enough differences between each one in the series to justify the $60 price tag for me. Call me when the price is around $30 and then I'll play it. Some people will pump a couple hundred hours into the game and get their $60 worth. I however will not be one of them due to it not being original enough to keep my attention.

I also felt BF3 was overpriced at $60 and refused to buy it at that price despite enjoying the beta test. BF3 I did end up purchasing though because I found it for $41 a few weeks before release for the limited edition. Now having played it for about a week I can see I will get my money's worth out of it.

EddieTheHack wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:40:So you like the $60 map packs more than the $15? BLOPS is exactly the same as every other MW game. The changes are minimal at best with ZERO substantive changes between the yearly $60 map pack. They copy pasta huge chunks of the game assets (sounds, textures, models),re-skin a few things, and call it a new game. COD is the same crap year in and year out. They are literally just map packs. Its running on the quake 3 engine - and that is a giant problem because it shows how few fucks the developer gives about the game. They care so little they can't even be bothered to use an engine from this millennium. COD is dated console trash for teenagers. Which begs the question - shouldn't you be in school right now instead of trolling?

The biggest gripe is the price they set for these games, isn't it? If it were $39.99 (or less) then I think people would be more receptive to more of the same, tweaked multiplayer, few new maps and some single player.

If you look at some franchises it just doesn't pay to go all crazy with the game design and change everything from the previous one just to be "different", look at how Unreal Tournament had devolved into being worse with each iteration since the first one. They changed the winning formula too much and people abandoned it.

As for the game engine, well at least you know it'll be rock stable since it's been used for so long. I applaud developers that try to push the envelope but being on the cutting edge can be a massive headache, Battlefield 3 is probably months away from any real form of stability, Nvidia won't even have bug fixes in their drivers till the end of this month from what I've read. DICE is working on a patch but has no firm release date.

BF3 plays a lot like BC2, but there are some noticeable differences. Some for the better (improved sound/graphics, better animation, better shooting mechanics)... some for the worse (not as much destruction or free standing buildings). Either way, I'd say the differences in the BF series a quite are bit more noticeable than the COD series.

That said, the new game modes demonstrated in the video alone intrigue me a bit. I'll probably end up just playing both games, because they both offer such difference experiences from one and other.

Vazz wrote on Nov 1, 2011, 15:13:I don't know why people attack CoD all the time and praise BF. BFBC2=BF3 even if you don't want to admit it for some reason. But I don't care, I still like both series.

It's the way they PR the game, they say things like "dedicated servers" for the PC but then later go "oh, but they'll be unranked".

at least they're offering dedicated servers at all, so there's that.

I do like some of the things they're talking about with this one, the way kill streaks have been turned into point streaks and with the support class you don't get kicked to the bottom of the ladder if you die.

It'll be interesting with the new skill based matchmaking, if it actually works then all the cheaters and aim-botters will end up playing against each other.

Uhhhh yeah they do, I played MW/MW2/BO and they're the same fucking games.

BO isn't even the same developer. I haven't played that game, but I'd imagine it would be weird if they play the same.

I can sit in front of a random level I've never seen (and there are plenty since I won't buy a $15 map pack) and tell you within seconds if it's MW or MW2. Or I can tell you when I get to 5 kills as the perk gameplay mechanic was drastically changed. Along with many other mechanics.

So, is Arkham City just a map pack for Arkham Asylum?

So you like the $60 map packs more than the $15? BLOPS is exactly the same as every other MW game. The changes are minimal at best with ZERO substantive changes between the yearly $60 map pack. They copy pasta huge chunks of the game assets (sounds, textures, models),re-skin a few things, and call it a new game. COD is the same crap year in and year out. They are literally just map packs. Its running on the quake 3 engine - and that is a giant problem because it shows how few fucks the developer gives about the game. They care so little they can't even be bothered to use an engine from this millennium. COD is dated console trash for teenagers. Which begs the question - shouldn't you be in school right now instead of trolling?